TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

§THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 34 to insert the following new clause:

§Land declared (otherwise than by development plan) to be subject to compulsory purchase

§
"(1) Where by virtue of paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to the Act of 1947 (which relates to land declared by an order under section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to be subject to compulsory purchase) the provisions of Part IV of the Act of 1947 apply in relation to any land as mentioned in that paragraph,—

(a) the provisions of section thirty-four and section (Obligation to purchase other owner-occupiers' interests affected by planning proposals) of this Act, and of the Fifth Schedule and the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, and

(b) subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section six of the Act of 1947 (which empowers the Minister to amend development plans) and subsection (1) of section nine of that Act (which relates to land which has for a long period been designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition),

shall have effect in relation to that land as if it were land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition.

§
(2) For the purposes of the application to any land, by virtue of the preceding subsection, of subsection (1) of section nine of the Act of 1947, the reference in the said subsection (1) to the date therein mentioned shall be construed as a reference to the date of the coming into operation of the order under section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, whereby the land was declared to be subject to compulsory purchase.

§
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, no notice shall be served under subsection (1) of the said section nine as applied by that subsection before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the commencement of this Act.

§
(4) In relation to any land to which subsection (1) of this section applies, subsections (2) and (3) of section nine of the Act of 1947 shall have effect with the substitution, in subsection (2) of that section, for the words "the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to cornpulsory acquisition", of the words "on the expiration of the said six months paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to this Act shall cease to apply to the land".

§
(5) Any reference in this section to subsection (1) of section nine of the Act of 1947 shall be construed as including a reference to that subsection as modified by subsection (5) of that section (which, in the case of agricultural land, substitutes a period of eight
234
years for the period of twelve years mentioned in subsection (1)).

§
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945; and for references to the Act of 1947, section six of that Act, section nine of that Act and Part IV of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947, section four of that Act, section seven of that Act and Part III of that Act."

§
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a much more restricted but quite important point. Declaratory orders made under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, in relation to areas of extensive war damage were similar to designations in development plans—indeed, in one sense designations are a development of declaratory orders. By paragraph 17 of the Tenth Schedule to the 1947 Act, declaratory orders count as designations for the purpose of the compulsory purchase provisions of Part IV of that Act. Unlike designations, however, they cannot be brought to an end, even though the local authority no longer have any intention to exercise any powers of compulsory purchase under them. They drag on as a threat to the land.

§
By subsection (1), the provisions of Clause 34 and of the new clause extending that clause will apply to declaratory orders as to designations, and so also will the provisions of Sections 6 (3) and 9 (1) of the 1947 Act which provide for the termination of designations. Thus owner-occupiers of property which is blighted by the existence of a declaratory order containing it will have the same sort of redress as those affected by a designation.

§
By subsection (2), Section 9 of the 1947 Act, under which a notice requiring purchase or de-designation of the land can be served after twelve years from designation, will operate in relation to declaratory orders as though the land had been designated on the date when the order came into effect, except that, by subsection (3), no notice can be served for one year from the commencement of the Act. This will give authorities a chance to de-designate the land under Section 6 (3) voluntarily. Subsections (4) and (5) of the new clause apply subsections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 9 with necessary modifications, and subsection (6) contains the Scottish application of the
235
clauses. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, was, I think, the first of these measures on which I had the pleasure of discussing this subject with him across the Floor of another place. Otherwise, the Amendment has no romantic point. I beg to move.

I tried to follow the noble and learned Viscount in his careful explanation of this new clause, but do I understand that the local authority which has made a declaratory order under the 1944 Act, on which nothing has been done—and obviously if it is going to apply to-day nothing will have been done for a very long time—will still have twelve months in which to make up their minds whether they are going ahead, and that during these twelve months no owner can require that his land shall be purchased or be served with a notice for that purpose? That puts off the owner's rights for one year in respect of these declaratory orders, but it requires the local authority to make up its mind once and for all within twelve months. If I am right in that, I think it is a sensible proposal and I strongly support it.

I am sure the Lord Chancellor will understand that a great many people who are not in the Government will have to try to understand these provisions. Notwithstanding the great care, courtesy and skill which has been shown by the Lord Chancellor on this Bill and, indeed, on every other Bill, I am going to call a spade a spade and not a shovel. So far as I am concerned, this Bill might as well be printed in Chinese; I simply do not know what it means. These provisions relate to planning blight. Do they mean that, so far as residential property is concerned, there is no restriction upon the right of the owner of that property to make a claim in a proper case? So far as non-residential property is concerned, there is a restriction of £250 net annual value—that is to say, where property exceeds that net annual value,
236
the owner of that property cannot make a claim at all.

So far as agricultural land is concerned, I am quite sure it must be clear to the Lord Chancellor and the other members of the Government and the "Double Firsts" on the Opposition Front Bench, but I have not the faintest idea what it means at all. If I have a house and farm of 300 acres, and it is proposed at some future date to drive a road through a corner of my farm, I appreciate the fact that I am not entitled to claim damages for planning blight for an injury which is done to a portion of my farm a great distance away from my dwellinghouse; but what am I entitled to claim? I should be extremely grateful if a very foolish person like myself could have some elementary observations made to me on this subject.

Were it not for the fact that I accept implicitly everything said by anyone who, like myself, is the son of an Aberdonian, I should have the greatest hesitation in believing that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was really as puzzled as he told the Committee. However, as I say I accept it implicity. May I put the matter again as clearly as I can; I hope it will be helpful. Under the former new clause the rights were given to owner-occupiers of farms. Those rights apply to agricultural units which are units in the occupation of one person who will be entitled to serve a notice under the clause if he holds the interest of an owner. That is an interest of which at least three years remain unexpired in the whole or part of the unit.

With regard to the next point about which the Lord, Lord Meston, wanted to be informed, in the case of a farm the obligation to buy extends only to the affected area; that is, to so much of the farm as consists of land falling within any of the paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of Clause 34. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 34 (1), paragraphs (a) to (f), he will see that those are clearly set out. But by paragraph 6 of the new Schedule which I am going to move, compensation for severance will be payable where only part of an agricultural unit is acquired. I reminded the House that in respect of an agricultural unit an additional grant for a counter-notice is provided when the
237
appropriate authority require part only of the affected area.

I think that makes the matter clear, and I hope that if there is any doubt as to the clarity the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will continue to ask for explanation and I will always do my utmost to explain it. He knows the difficulty of drafting; one has to make the law certain, and of course when one is drafting one has in mind difficulties that have arisen before, and words have to be put in to meet them. Indeed, the noble Lord would be the first to agree that certainty is a very important quality in the law. I hope I have helped him on that point and I shall be pleased to help him on any other.

LORD MESTON

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his great courtesy and skill in explaining this.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount can explain whether the de-designation in this way, removal of markings, is the same as de-designation in any other way; that is to say, it is by amendment to the scheme? Possibly I could be informed privately.

I said that the difficulty is that at present they cannot be brought to an end. But if my noble friend will look at subsection (1) of this clause, he will see that that attracts the provisions of Clause 34 and of the new clause extending that clause, and they will apply to declaratory orders in the same way as to designations. Apart from that, the governing matters will be the provisions of Sections 6 and 9 of the 1947 Act. I think that my noble friend is right, but I will, in order to be quite sure, avail myself of the kind offer and verify it and let him know.

It may help the noble Lord if I tell him that, in my own opinion, de-designation and the removal of markings are two different things. You can remove all the markings, but if you have not de-designated the land still remains designated, and at a future date new markings can be made. They are two different things.

§
Clause 36 [Acquisition of land in connection with town development in England and Wales]:

EARL BATHURST

With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak on Amendments No. 101 and on No. 102, which is consequential. In effect, these Amendments extend the scope of Clause 36 to correspond to that of Section 56 of the Town and Country Development Act, 1952, which allows any local authority to buy in advance for town development purposes. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 40 and insert ("Any power of the Minister under section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
".—(1) Section eighty-one of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (which relates to expenses of conveyances) shall, in relation to any conveyance of lands granted after the commencement of this Act, have effect as if any reference therein to the charges and expenses of establishing the title to the lands included a reference to so much of any charge or expense incurred by the seller in completing title to the lands as is attributable to any requirement of the promoters of the undertaking in connection with the conveyance in question.

§
(2) In this section 'conveyance', 'seller' and 'promoters of the undertaking' have the same meanings as in the said section eighty-one."

§
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble and learned friend. This clause is necessary because of the particular situation which exists in Scotland. Obviously, an owner must prove his title to land before any compulsory purchase can be agreed upon. In England the legal costs that owner may have to meet in order to prove his title are met by the
239
authority compulsorily acquiring that land; that is a recognised principle in England. It is believed that the affairs of Scotland should be remedied so that that right does exist to an owner of compulsorily acquired land. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause. —(Earl Bathurst.)

The noble Earl has explained this Amendment in rather sketchy terms. He based his case on the fact that the law in Scotland requires amendment, and I suppose he speaks with some authority on the subject. But the extraordinary thing is that all the local authorities in Scotland take the view that the law does not require amendment. They regard the position as perfectly satisfactory as it stands. This new clause purports to amend Section 81 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. That Act has been in operation for a long time and, except for a case in 1848, which created a certain amount of doubt, has operated perfectly satisfactorily. The view the local authorities take (I do not necessarily identify myself with them; I merely state their case) is that this new clause will create confusion and doubt where at present there is little confusion or doubt in the matter.

I do not know whether it would interest the Committee if I developed this point at any length. Perhaps my best course is to state in the briefest terms what is the objection that local authorities in Scotland have, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to have a word with him before the next stage. Or, if he would prefer it, I will gladly hand him their memorandum, and he can then follow their point. Quite briefly, they have two main objections. One is that they regard the words in the Amendment "any requirement of the promoters" as being somewhat vague—that is, that the local authority is to pay the cost of complying with any requirement of the promoter in making a title.

As the noble and learned Viscount knows perfectly well, the term "requirement" can be held to mean a requisition on title. Requisitions on title are perfectly normal things that take place in the course of the conveyance of property, and it is normally for the owner of the
240
property being acquired to make out his title and to satisfy any reasonable requirement necessary to make out his title. Normally, he is required to do that at his own expense. That is the position at the present time. If you have not got a title you cannot transfer it. If your title is not complete, it is your business to get it complete before you can pass on the satisfactory title to anybody else. The cost of completing your title should, in fairness, be borne by you, not by the local authority; it is not their fault that you have not got a perfect title. They regard the present position, that it is for the owner of the land to make out his title, as perfectly satisfactory and as having worked without any difficulty whatever; and they are at a loss to understand why it is necessary to-day to alter this position.

There is one other point that I should make: the authority may be required to purchase a small part of a large estate or a small part of a trust estate. There may be a defect in the title of the whole of the land or of the trust. As this new clause reads, it may well be that the cost of putting the trust deed right, or the cost of completing the title to a large area of land, would have to be met by the local authority. There is a doubt about it. It is not quite clear as to what is meant. The clause refers to costs "attributable to any requirement of the promoters." Are the costs attributable to them if they are acquiring five acres out of a 1,000 acres? Could it properly be said that costs incurred in making a title to the 1,000 acres, which is necessary in order to give a title to the five acres, are "attributable to any requirement of the promoter"?

One can argue either way, but at best there would be a doubt about it, and possibly a dispute which would have to go to the Lands Tribunal and might involve both parties in considerable expense. So I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to look again at this clause. I do not mind whether he asks for it to be passed now or whether he takes it back for further consideration, but I feel that it is necessary to look at it again. There is a genuine apprehension about the clause, and I feel that it would be wise and certainly desirable if it could be, in its final form, an acceptable clause to those who have to operate it.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his clear and concise description of this complicated branch of the Scottish law. I know that there is opposition to this Amendment but, so far as I am aware, it is from only one Council. In fact, this Amendment has been before the Convention of Royal Burghs and they regarded it as fair and reasonable, and the County Councils Association in Scotland made no comment upon it. But in view of the objection which the noble Lord has mentioned, my noble and learned friend will look at this Amendment again to see whether this difficulty can be put right. I should like, however, to make it quite clear to the noble Lord opposite that this Amendment refers only to land compulsorily acquired.

If the land is being acquired under ordinary sale or purchase, then, of course, the seller, if he so wishes, may decide not to sell his land at all to the council. In such a case, obviously, he would put a price on it which would suitably cover his legal expenses in making clear his claim.

Of course we will have a look at it, and I will communicate with the noble Lord about it. As I understand it, the Court of Session over one hundred years ago did pronounce on Section 81 of the Lands Clauses Act. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I promise to have another look at it and to write to him about it.

This Amendment can be considered with Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 116. Compensation paid for the revocation or modification of planning permission under Section 22 of the 1947 Aot, as amended by the 1954 Act, covers the total depreciation caused by the order in question, without being limited by any unexpended balance. This amount is payable by the local planning authority and is registered as a charge on the land recoverable before subsequent development like compensation paid by the Minister for a planning refusal. The Minister may contribute the amount of
242
any unexpended balance and may have paid some grant towards the compensation. Under the Bill as it stands, the Minister is entitled to recover from an acquiring authority the total amount of such compensation. These Amendments, by attracting the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 41 of the 1954 Act, provide that in such a case the Minister must pay over to the local planning authority the amount recovered, less the amount of any contributions that he may have made. Amendment No. 109 is merely a consequential drafting change; and Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 116 make similar changes to the Scottish application subsection. I beg to move.

This Amendment goes with a different group of Amendments on the same clause—Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 113, 114 and 115. These Amendments ensure that the power of recovery under Section 52 of the 1954 Act, as amended by this clause, will operate where compensation has become payable as the result of a planning decision taken before the completion of an acquisition or sale but the charge on the land is not registered until after that date. The liability to repay such charge will have been taken into account in assessing compensation for the acquisition of land. In other words, the gap in these provisions is closed by those Amendments. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 42, leave out ("is for the time being registered").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 45, after ("Act") insert ("is registered (whether before or after the completion of the acquisition or sale) in respect of a planning decision or order made before the service of the notice to treat, or the making of the contract, in pursuance of which the acquisition or sale is effected").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—("(6A) Where by virtue of the last preceding subsection the Minister recovers a sum in respect of any land, by reason that it is land in respect of which a notice is registered under subsection (5) of section twenty-eight of this Act as applied by section thirty-nine of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of section forty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that sum as if it were a sum recovered as mentioned in subsection (2) of the said section forty-one.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("is recorded (whether before or after the completion of the acquisition or sale) in respect of a planning decision or order made before the service of the notice to treat, or the making of the contract, in pursuance of which the acquisition or sale is effected").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Page 59, line 32, at end insert—
(6A) Where by virtue of the last preceding subsection the Secretary of State recovers a sum in respect of any land, by reason that it is land in respect of which a notice is recorded under subsection (4) of section forty-one of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of section forty-three of this Act shall have effect in relation to that sum as if it were a sum recovered as mentioned in subsection (2) of the said section forty-three."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Page 60, line 11, at end insert—
() The rights conferred by section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall be exercisable by a person who (within the meaning of that section) is an owner-occupier of a hereditament or agricultural unit
245
which is Crown land, in the same way as they are exercisable in respect of a hereditament or agricultural unit which is not Crown land, and the provisions of that section and of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act shall apply accordingly."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

This Amendment and Amendment No. 150 to the Sixth Schedule go together. This Amendment deletes the definition of "interest in land" which is attracted from the 1954 Act. The definition in that Act is limited to an interest in fee simple or a tenancy, and is too restricted. The Act of 1919 and the 1947 Act do not contain any definition of "interest in land", and the compensation provisions of those Acts therefore apply to the assessment of compensation for the purchase of other forms of interest, such as the purchase of an easement. The new basis of compensation should apply to the compulsory purchase of any interest in land. I beg to move.

§
Page 64, line 11, at end insert—
("() Subsections (2) and (3) of section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1947, and subsections (2) and (3) of section one hundred and eight of the Scottish Act of 1947, shall apply respectively for the purposes of the construction of references in this Act to the Third Schedule to the Act of 1947 and to the Third Schedule to the Scottish Act of 1947.")—(Earl Bathurst.)

This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 126 and 165 go together, and with your Lordships' permission I will speak to both. They are consequential on repeals in the 1954 Act
247
effected by the Eighth Schedule, in particular of Section 53 (5) of the 1954 Act, effected by Amendment No. 165, which deals with the compulsory purchase price. I beg to move.

I think the Committee might consider this Amendment and Amendment No. 128 together. When the Bill was introduced it seemed possible that it might become an operative Act before May, 1959. The provisions relaxing ministerial control over land transactions by local authorities in Scotland contained in Part II of the Bill, follow another provision of this kind in the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, which becomes operative on May 16, 1959. Accordingly, Clause 48 (3) provided that Part II of the Planning Bill, in its application to Scotland, would come into operation on May 16, 1959. In present circumstances that provision can now be deleted from the Bill, with the effect that Part II will become operative in Scotland, as well as in England, one month from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 26, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out paragraph 4 and to insert instead:

§
"4.—(1) Where, for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, an increase in the value of an interest in other land has, in any of the cases mentioned in the table, been taken into account by virtue of subsection (4) of section nine of this Act or any corresponding enactment, then, in connection with any subsequent acquisition to which this paragraph applies, that increase shall not be left out of account by virtue of subsection (2) of section nine of this Act, or taken into account by virtue of subsection (4) of that section or any corresponding enactment, in so far as it was taken into account in connection with the previous acquisition.

§
(2) Where, in connection with a compulsory acquisition of an interest in land, a diminution in the value of an interest in other land has, in any of the cases mentioned in the table, been taken into account in assessing compensation for injurious affection, then, in connection with any subsequent acquisition to which this paragraph applies, that diminution shall not he left out of account, by virtue of subsection (2) of section nine of this Act, in so far as it was taken into account in connection with the previous acquisition.

§
(3) This paragraph applies to any subsequent acquisition where either—

(a) the interest acquired by the subsequent acquisition is the same as the interest previously taken into account (whether the acquisition extends to the whole of the land in which that interest previously subsisted or only to part of that land), or

(b) the person entitled to the interest acquired is, or derives title to that interest from, the person who at the time of the previous acquisition was entitled to the interest previously taken into account;

and in this sub-paragraph any reference to the interest previously taken into account is a reference to the interest the increased or diminished value whereof was taken into account as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.

§
(4) Where, in connection with a sale of an interest in land by agreement, the circumstances were such that, if it had been a compulsory acquisition, an increase or diminution of value would have fallen to be taken into account as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply, with the necessary modifications, as if that sale had been a compulsory acquisition and that increase or diminution of value had been taken into account accordingly.

§
(5) In this paragraph "corresponding enactment" means any such enactment as is mentioned in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and any reference to a case mentioned in the table is a reference to a case mentioned in the first column of the table set out in subsection (2) of section nine of this Act."

§
The noble and learned Viscount said: enhancement in value of other land contiguous or adjacent to land which is being acquired is set off against the compensation payable for the latter in the expectation that such enhancement in value will be realised on any subsequent sale. If, on the other hand, the other land is subsequently acquired compulsorily as part of the same scheme, Clause 9 will prevent account being taken of that enhancement in value, and so the owner will receive too little. Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule is intended to prevent this happening, by providing that Clause 9 shall not apply to the second transaction.

§
There are a number of possible combinations of circumstances in which paragraph 4 will not produce the correct result. For example, if the other land falls outside the area of the original scheme and is brought subsequently in the course of another scheme, Clause 9 would not in any case have operated to exclude enhancement due to the first scheme, but paragraph 4 operates to let in the value due to the second scheme, which ought to be excluded. Moreover, paragraph 4 relates only to enhancement in value, but similar difficulties arise where compensation is paid for diminution in value due to injurious affection.

§
This Amendment therefore substitutes a new paragraph 4 which should produce the correct result in all circumstances. Sub-paragraph (1) provides that where enhancement in value has been set off, that enhancement shall not be left out of account on any future purchase or set off a second time. Sub-paragraph (2) provides similarly that where compensation has been paid for diminution of value, that diminution shall not be disregarded on a subsequent acquisition. Subparagraph (3) takes care of any intervening change in the ownership of the interests involved; sub-paragraph (4) applies the provisions to acquisitions by agreement, and sub-paragraph (5) contains definitions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he wanted to encourage the playing of chess as an inducement to international agreement. I think it might also be an inducement to drafting clauses to fill up gaps of this kind. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 41, leave out paragraph 4 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

I do not rise to object to this clause, but only to say that this is an example of not looking several moves ahead. One would expect that at the time when you are considering enhancement of the value of land adjoining you might at the same time have thought of the possibility of diminution; but that seems to have been overlooked.

§
Second Schedule [Acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation]:

§LORD HYLTON had tabled an Amendment to omit Part I of the Schedule. The noble Lord said: The Committee have now had the advantage of reading at leisure the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, which appear in Vol. 215, columns 957–8–9 of Hansard of April 23. I am particularly impressed by what appears at the bottom of column 958, where the noble and learned Viscount refers to the categories of houses which would receive only site value compensation. He reduces these down to houses that must have been "bought before the war or after 1955"; and then he goes on to analyse the principle of acquisition of single sites and the various payments made in relation to them. This matter was argued at some length earlier in the Bill and also in another place. I am told that it may be that the peak of such acquisitions has not yet occurred and, therefore, that the figures quoted for, I believe, the first half of 1958 may be exceeded in future years. But if there is going to be only this limited number of cases, at any rate for the time being, I am perfectly prepared to accept the noble and learned Viscount's assurances. If more cases should occur in the future, then it may well be that the Government would have to look at this matter again. That being so, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name.

This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 135A, 135B and 135C. The first three relate to England and Wales. They correct omissions in the list of powers in relation to which unfitness orders can be made under paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act. 1944, as amended by this Schedule. The additions are acquisitions under the New Towns Act, 1946,
251
which applies certain provisions of the 1944 Act, including this Schedule, and acquisitions under the new clause after Clause 34 which extends the provisions for dealing with planning blight. Amendments 135A, 135B and 135C correct similar omissions in the Scottish Part II of the Second Schedule in the list of powers in relation to which unfitness orders can be made under paragraph 8 in the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 31, leave out from ("being") to ("where") in line 33 and insert—

(c) an acquisition in pursuance of section thirty-four or section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act, or

(d) an acquisition of land within the area designated by an order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, at the site of a new town, or

(e) an acquisition by a development corporation or a local highway authority or the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the New Towns Act, 1946, or under any enactment as applied by any provision of that Act,

§LORD SILKIN had given notice of two Amendments to paragraph 1 (2) the first being to leave out "if". The noble Lord
252
said: This and the next Amendment must go together. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will remember that when we discussed the question of compensation for the acquisition of slum property a number of proposals were before the Committee, all of them designed to give the owner of a very small site and the owner-occupier of a small slum house, where the compensation would be so restricted as to be negligible, a reasonable payment for his land. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put down an Amendment. I think his Amendment was in the wrong place, but he got in with it first. The proper place was as an Amendment of the Schedule.

It was agreed, I think, that all the arguments that were put forward would be considered by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and that possibly we might have an opportunity of discussing it before the next stage; and then, if necessary, we could put down Amendments at that stage. In these circumstances, I do not want to do more than draw attention to my Amendment as a possible means of providing additional compensation to the kind of owner that we have in mind; and if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will, as I am sure he will, undertake to have this particular method of dealing with the matter in mind, I shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.

I should like to support this Amendment in general principle. I regard it as a "last-ditch" effort. On the few occasions when I have had the honour to be reported by the Press I have generally been referred to as a "Back Bench Liberal", and as such I do not profess to carry any weight; but for years I have been speaking about the gross injustice of assessing compensation on the basis of site values. Let us come to the point without any skirmish. Suppose, for example, that there were no such thing as town and country planning. The simple question would be: "What would you give for an old house which undoubtedly is not up to standard?"—and the short answer would be: "I might give £100" or "I might give only £50". That is perfectly fair, and that is the
253
type of reasoning that ought to apply to-day. As the Bill stands at the present time, I understand that the minimum, which will be the maximum, that a person can get is the gross value. It may be about £10 or £15.

I think that the effort made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to treble that amount is most meritorious. I do not approve of the system of assessing compensation on the basis of site value at all, but it exists, and we have to do the best we can in the circumstances. Therefore I think that this is a most meritorious Amendment, and if there were more Liberals here I would invite them to draw themselves up in shining armour and go into the Division Lobby; but it does not arise to-day. It may arise on the Report stage. want only to say that, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, I support this Amendment.

Clearly, in view of that demonstration of force by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, apart from what Lord Silkin has said and, from a slightly different angle, what Lord Hylton has said, I should like time to consider this point very carefully. Again, noble Lords will not take me as binding the Government; but they have all spoken with such feeling as well as argument about the matter that I should like the time between now and Report stage to consider it once again. I hope that they will be content with that, and will not press the matter to-day.

Perhaps I ought to explain that this Amendment and Amendments 135 E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, go together and are consequential on Amendments already made to Clause 17 on page 21, lines 7 and 10, by Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I beg to move.

§
. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to settled land, where, in a case falling within subsection (1) of section seventeen or subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a mortgage, any reference in section seventeen of this Act to the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was
256
payable, or to the person referred to in subsection (2) of the said section seventeen, and any reference in section eighteen of this Act to the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price, shall be construed as a reference to the person who, subject to the mortgage, was entitled to that interest, and not as a reference to the mortgagee.

§
. For the purposes of the application of section seventeen or section nineteen of this Act, and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph, to a case falling within the last preceding paragraph, any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which was payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would have been payable in respect thereof if the interest in question had not been subject to a mortgage; and any reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would in any particular circumstances have been payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition shall be construed as a reference to the principal amount of the compensation which would in those circumstances have been payable in respect of such a compulsory acquisition if the interest in question had not been subject to a mortgage.

§
. No compensation shall be payable by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, or by virtue of the provisions of that section as extended by section nineteen of this Act, in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement, where the interest acquired or sold was the interest of a mortgagee (as distinct from an interest subject to a mortgage)."

§
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment corrects a defect in the application of Clauses 17 to 19 to land which at the time of the acquisition was subject to a mortgage. Under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, where the value of the land is less than the amount outstanding on the mortgage, the compensation is payable to the mortgagee, who then has to convey his interest in the land to the acquiring authority. Under Clause 17 as it stands, the additional compensation is payable to the person to whom the original compensation was payable—that is, in the case in question, to the mortgagee. This is obviously wrong. The mortgagee may already have recovered the balance due to him from the mortgagor under the personal covenant, and, even if he has not, the additional compensation may be more than enough to meet his claim. In any event, he is no longer in fact a mortgagee, and there seems no reason to give him any status under these clauses.

§
The Amendment therefore provides that it is the person who held the interest in the land subject to the mortgage, and not the mortgagee, who has the right to
257
claim under Clauses 17 to 19. The mortgagee is adequately protected by his normal rights against the mortgagor. It would be possible, moreover, for the mortgagee to take an assignment from the mortgagor of the right to claim. The Scottish application, of this Amendment will be put down on Report stage. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 14, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

This is a technical Amendment. It ensures that, where compensation was paid to a person acting as trustee of a settlement—whether a settlement under the Settled Lands Act, 1925, or a trust for sale within the meaning of the Law of Property Act, 1925—a claim for additional compensation under Clauses 17 to 19 can still be made where there has been a change of trustee since the land was acquired. I beg to move.

§
() Where, in a case falling within subsection (1) of section seventeen or subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the interest in land which was acquired or sold was subject to a settlement, and accordingly the compensation or purchase price was payable to the trustees of that settlement, any reference in section seventeen of this Act to the person to whom the compensation or purchase price was payable, and any reference in section eighteen of this Act to the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price, shall be construed as a reference to the trustees for the time being of the settlement.

§
() Where the preceding sub-paragraph applies, subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act shall not apply.

§
() Any compensation paid to the trustees of a settlement by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, or by virtue of the provisions of that section as extended by section nineteen of this Act, in respect of a compulsory acquisition or sale by agreement, shall be applicable by the trustees as if it were proceeds of the sale of the interest acquired or sold.

This Amendment simply leaves out the words "Water Scotland Act, 1946" which are not required. It can be taken together with Amendment No. 138, which deals with another Act of a cognate character. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 35, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("such a power of compulsory acquisition as is mentioned in that paragraph, being a power exercisable in respect of that land as therein mentioned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Under Clause 34, the service of a notice by an owner which is not successfully opposed leads to notice to treat being
259
deemed to have been served under the appropriate enactment as defined in Clause 34 (7). In some circumstances, more than one enactment may appear to be appropriate and the choice may be material. This Amendment therefore provides machinery for determining in any case of doubt which enactment is appropriate. I beg to move.

§
Page 81, line 22, at end insert—
("9. If any question arises as to which enactment is the appropriate enactment in relation to any land for the purposes of the said section thirty-four, that question shall be referred—

(a) where the appropriate authority are a government department, to the Minister or Board in charge of that department;

(b) where the appropriate authority are statutory undertakers, to the appropriate Minister; and

(c) in any other case, to the Minister,

and the decision of the Minister or Board to whom a question is referred under this paragraph shall be final.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

This Amendment also provides for circumstances that might occur. If a resident owner-occupier has served a notice and dies before notice to treat is deemed to have been served, in that event his personal representatives, or in Scotland the successor, will be able to continue as the claimant under the notice which has been served. I beg to move.

(" .—(1) In relation to any time after the death of a person who has served a notice under section thirty-four of this Act, the provisions of that section, and the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall apply subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (3) of the said section thirty-four, the reference to the service of a counter-notice on that person shall be construed as a reference to the service of a counter-notice on his personal representatives.

(3) In head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, for the words 'is not ' there shall be substituted the words 'immediately before his death, was not'.

(4) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and in paragraph 7 of this Schedule, any reference to that person shall be construed as a reference to his personal representatives.

(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference, in relation to a person who has served a notice under section thirty-four of this Act, to that person's personal

260
representatives there shall be substituted a reference to the person who on that person's death, has succeeded to his interest in the hereditament in question.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§
Page 81, line 22, at end insert—
(".—(l) Where any land is on the boundary between two or more rating areas, and accordingly—

(a) different parts of that land form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for those areas respectively, but

(b) if the whole of that land had been in one of those areas it would have formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for that area,

the whole of that land shall be treated, for the purposes of the definition of 'hereditament' in subsection (7) of section thirty-four of this Act, as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area.

(2) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference to a rating area there shall be substituted a reference to a valuation area, and, in relation to a valuation area, for any reference to the valuation list there shall be substituted a reference to the valuation roll.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the Fifth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:

§
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PURCHASE OF OTHER OWNER-OCCUPIERS' INTERESTS

§
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act.

§
2.—(1) Where a person (in this Schedule referred to as "the claimant") has served a notice under that section, the appropriate authority shall not be entitled to serve a counter-notice thereunder objecting to that notice, except on one or more of the following grounds, that is to say,—

(a) that the hereditament or agricultural unit in question does not fulfil the conditions specified in subsection (1) of that section;

261

(b) that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of that section) do not propose to acquire any part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) of the affected area, in the exercise of any relevant powers;

(c) that (in the case of an agricultural unit) the appropriate authority propose in the exercise of relevant powers to acquire a part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice, but (unless compelled to do so by virtue of that section) do not propose to acquire any other part of that area in the exercise of any such powers;

(d) that the claimant is not an owner-occupier of the hereditament or agricultural unit;

(e) that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section are not fulfilled.

§
(2) Any such counter-notice shall specify the grounds (being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the preceding subparagraph) on which the appropriate authority object to the notice.

§
(3) Any reference in this paragraph to relevant powers shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

§
3.—(1) Where such a counter-notice has been served, the claimant may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.

§
(2) On any such reference the Lands Tribunal shall consider the matters set out in the notice served by the claimant, and the grounds of the objection specified in the counter-notice; and, subject to the next following sub-paragraph, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is not well-founded, the Tribunal shall uphold the objection.

§
(3) An objection on the grounds mentioned in head (b) or head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph shall not be upheld by the Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded.

§
(4) If the Tribunal does not uphold the objection, the Tribunal shall declare that the notice to which the counter-notice relates is a valid notice and shall give directions as to the date mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals).

§
(5) If the Tribunal upholds the objection, but only on the grounds mentioned in head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph,—

(a) the Tribunal shall declare that the notice is a valid notice in relation to the part of the affected area specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire as therein mentioned, but not in relation to any other part of the affected area;

(b) the Tribunal shall give directions as to the date mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act; and

262

(c) for the purposes of that section, the objection shall be taken to be upheld by the Tribunal, but on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, namely that part which is not specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire.

§
4.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

(a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or

(b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

§
(2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the counter-notice relates, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in the hereditament or agricultural unit or any part thereof shall cease to have effect.

§
(3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no part of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) no part of the affected area, were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.

§
5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

(a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or

(b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

§
In the following provisions of this paragraph any reference to "the part of the affected area not required" is a reference to the whole of that area except the part specified in the counter-notice as being the part which the appropriate authority propose to acquire as therein mentioned.

§
(2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes any of the part of the affected area not required, or if the land in question falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of
263
section thirty-four of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in any land comprised in the part of the affected area not required shall cease to have effect.

§
(3) If the land in question falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no land comprised in the part of the affected area not required were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.

§
6. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to a notice served under section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act as they have effect in relation to a notice served under section thirty-four of this Act, subject to the modification that, in subparagraph (3) of the said paragraph 9, the reference to head (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be construed as a reference to head (d) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule:

§
Provided that sub-paragraph (a) of, and the proviso to, paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to a notice served in respect of an agricultural unit.

§
7.—(1) For the purposes of the application of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act, and of the preceding provisions of this Schedule, to a hereditament or agricultural unit occupied for the purposes of a partnership firm—

(a) occupation for the purposes of the firm shall he treated as occupation by the firm, and not as occupation by any one or more of the partners individually, and the definitions of "owner-occupier" in subsections (7) and (8) of that section shall apply in relation to the firm accordingly; and

(b) if, after the service by the firm of a notice under subsection (2) of that section, any change occurs (whether by death or otherwise) in the constitution of the firm, any proceedings, rights or obligations consequential upon that notice may be carried on or exercised by or against, or (as the case may be) shall be incumbent upon, the partners for the time being constituting the firm.

§
(2) Nothing in the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) or in this paragraph shall be construed as indicating an intention to exclude the operation of section nineteen of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (whereby, unless the contrary intention appears, 'person' includes any body of persons corporate or unincorporate) in relation to any of the provisions of the said section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) or this Schedule.

§
8. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) of section thirty-four of this Act, land which forms the subject of an entry in the valuation list by reason only that it is land over which
264
any shooting, fishing or other sporting rights are exercisable, or that it is land over which a right of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved, shall not be taken to be a hereditament for the purposes of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act or of this Schedule.

§
9. Where, in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, as applied by the preceding provisions of this Schedule, land whereof different parts form the subject of single entries in the valuation lists for the time being in force for two or more rating areas is treated as if it formed the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for a rating area, the definition of 'annual value' in subsection (9) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall apply as if any reference therein to a value shown in the valuation list were a reference to the aggregate of the values shown (as rateable values or as net annual values, as the case may be) in those valuation lists in relation to the different parts of that land.

§
10. Subsections (7) to (10) of section (Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that section.

§
11. In the application of paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to a rating area there shall be substituted a reference to a valuation area."

§
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Schedule connected with the new clause which we discussed earlier today under Amendment No. 99. It makes the consequential provisions made necessary by the insertion of the new clause. I beg to move.

§
Amendment moved—
After the Fifth Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD HYLTON

May I ask one question on this Amendment? What happens after the Lands Tribunal has made a decision under Section 4 (3)? So far as I can understand this matter, which is not a particularly simple one, the Lands Tribunal makes a decision in the matter but it does not appear to be necessary for that decision to be registered either with the planning authority or in the local Land Charges Register. There seems to be a gap—or it may be my lack of knowledge. The decision of the Lands Tribunal is of great importance because under subsection (3) of the clause the affected area may be subject to compulsory acquisition. It is dealt with by the Lands Tribunal but that decision does not go any further. I suppose that the owner or applicant would know about
265
the decision, but it would seem desirable that there should be some provision, perhaps by regulation, that the local planning authority or the local Land Charges Register should be informed. I regret that I have not had time to give notice of this point to the noble and learned Viscount and perhaps he could look at it before Report stage.

§
In section fifty-eight, in paragraph (b) of subsection (7), for the words from 'as a condition of consenting' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words 'where any of the land to which estimates submitted under this section relate is subsequently sold, let or appropriated otherwise than in accordance with the proposals on which the estimates were based, to require the smallholdings authority to furnish the Minister with such particulars of the sale, letting or appropriation as may be determined by or under the regulations, and may empower the Minister to adjust contributions as he may think fit having regard to those particulars'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

This Amendment and Amendment No. 154, which is the Scottish equivalent, might, with your Lordships' permission, be taken together. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 20 of
266
the 1947 Act provide for the payment of compensation where in lieu of confirming a purchase notice under Section 19 the Minister directs that planning permission shall be granted for development which gives a value to the land falling short of full existing use value. In such a case, compensation is payable amounting to the difference between the value of the land with the permission referred to in the direction and its value if compulsorily acquired under Section 51 of the 1947 Act. The Amendment preserves this provision, but substitutes the expression "existing use value" for "compulsory purchase value" which is no longer in accord with the market value basis obtaining on compulsory acquisitions. I beg to move.

§
Page 87, line 9, at end insert—
In section twenty, in subsections (3) and (4), for the words 'compulsory purchase value', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'existing use value'; and at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the words 'and the purchase were not a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

This Amendment and Amendment No. 155 can with your Lordships' permission be taken together, No. 155 being the Scottish equivalent. Where requisitioned land is bought at existing use value the assumptions based on the Third Schedule are related to circumstances as they existed at the date of requisition, by subsection (2) of Section 54 of the 1947 Act. This Amendment adds a new subsection (2A) to cover the case when compensation is assessed under the Bill by reference to Clause 3 (3), which provides that permissions for Third Schedule development are to be assumed. I beg to move.

§
Page 87, line 9, at end insert—
("In section fifty-four, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—'(2A) Where, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies,—

(b) the land is requisitioned land and the period of requisition had begun before the appointed day.

267
subsections (3) and (4) of section three of the said Act of 1959 shall have effect as if for any reference to the appointed day in the Third Schedule to this Act there were substituted a reference to the beginning of the period of requisition';
and in subsection (3), after the words 'paragraph (a)' there shall be inserted the words 'of subsection (2) of this section or by virtue'.")—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 87, line 32, at end insert—
("In section eighteen, in subsections (3) and (4) for the words 'compulsory purchase value', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'existing use value'; and at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the words 'and the purchase were not a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 87, line 32, at end insert—
("in section fifty-one, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—'(2A) Where, in she case of a compulsory acquisition to which section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, applies,—

(b) the land is requisitioned land and the period of requisition had begun before the appointed day,

subsections (3) and (4) of section three of the said Act of 1959 shall have effect as if for any reference to the appointed day in the Third Schedule to this Act there were substituted a reference to the beginning of the period of requisition';
and in subsection (3), after the words 'paragraph (a)' there shall be inserted the words 'of subsection (2) of this section or by virtue'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 87, line 33, at end insert—
("In section twenty-nine, in subsection (6), after the words 'section fifty-two of this Act' there shall be inserted the words '(either as originally enacted or as amended by section
268
forty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959)', and for the words 'that section' there shall be substituted the words 'the said section fifty-two'.").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 87, line 44, at end insert—
("In section thirty, in subsection (6), after the words 'section fifty-four of this Act' there shall be inserted the words '(either as originally enacted or as amended by section forty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959)', and for the words 'that section' there shall be substituted the words 'the said section fifty-four'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 87, line 54, at end insert—
("In section sixty-two, in subsection (8), at the end, there shall be inserted the following proviso, that is say,—'Provided that, where the acquisition in question is a transaction in relation to which the repeal of the said subsection (4) by section forty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, has effect, this subsection shall have effect as if for the words from "the dominium utile in question" to the word "applied" (in the second place where that word occurs) there were substituted the words "the said Rule (5) had not applied".'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
In section forty-seven, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(2) Land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, be sold, exchanged or leased under this section for a price, consideration, or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions (including conditions as to payment or the giving of security for payment) subject to which it is sold, exchanged or let.'").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
page 88, column 3, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
("Sections fifty-one to fifty-three.In section fifty-four, in subsection (1), the words 'in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act' and the words from 'and in particular' to the end of the subsection.").—(Earl Bathurst.)

§
Page 88, column 3, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
("Sections forty-eight to fifty.In section fifty-one, in subsection (1), the words 'in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act' and the words from 'and in particular' to the end of the subsection.").—(Earl Bathurst.)

In a few words I should like to be satisfied that those people who are entitled to the benefit of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956, will get exactly what they want by this Bill, and will not be prejudiced thereby.

EARL BATHURST

The provisions of the Act were consolidated in the Housing Act, 1957, but the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, were not amended at the time of consolidation, and are still referred to in the 1956 Act. The amended version of the 1944 Act Schedule, which appears in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, corrects this.

LORD MESTON

I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. It is rather scientific, but it will sink in eventually.